13 Australian peak Non Government Organisations seek stronger Environmental Law on Nuclear Issues
Joint ENGO Submission on Nuclear Issues as they Relate to the Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act Review 2020
This submission is made on behalf of the following national and state peak environment groups:
-
- Australian Conservation Foundation,
- Australian Nuclear Free Alliance,
- Friends of the Earth Australia,
- Greenpeace Australia Pacific,
- Mineral Policy Institute,
- The Wilderness Society,
- Arid Lands Environment Centre,
- Environment Centre NT,
- Environment Victoria,
- Conservation Council SA,
- Conservation Council WA,
- Nature Conservation Council NSW and Queensland Conservation Council.
This submission outlines the importance of retaining s140A of the EPBC Act which prohibits nuclear power; the retention of uranium exploration and mining in the definition of a Nuclear Action and the inclusion of Nuclear Actions as a Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES).
This submission is made in consideration of the broader objects and principles of the Act and is based on evidence from recent inquiries into both nuclear power and uranium mining. There is clear evidence that nuclear activities can have a significant environmental and public health risk and, in many cases, irreversible impacts, and this is consistent with the current dedicated legislative prohibitions for both nuclear power and scrutiny for uranium mining.
While the current Act does not include a prohibition on uranium mining we strongly advocate that there be a national ban on uranium mining consistent with state legal or policy prohibitions in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and West Australia Written by Mia Pepper, Jim Green, Dave Sweeney, David Noonan & Annica Schoo.
Summary of Recommendations
Uranium:
• that uranium mining and milling be included in s140A prohibitions as nuclear actions that the Minister must not approve, on the basis that the nuclear industry has failed to successfully remediate any uranium mine in Australia and has impacts inconsistent with the objects and principles of the EPBC Act.
• if the above recommendation is not adopted that uranium mining and milling remains within the definition of a ‘nuclear action’ and that nuclear actions continue to be listed as MNES and the protected matters continue to be listed as the ‘environment’ and so be subject to full environmental assessment at the state level
• DAWE to initiate an inquiry into the human and environmental impacts of uranium mining, as advised by the UN Secretary General following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, noting that Australian uranium was present in each of the Fukushima Daiichi reactors at the time of multiple reactor meltdowns
. • regulatory reform for existing operating mines • that the review committee recommend DAWE prioritise the rehabilitation of abandoned uranium mines and processing facilities, exploration sites and uranium mines that have been in care and maintenance for more than two years.
Nuclear Power:
• the retention of s140A of the EPBC Act 1999 which states “No approval for certain nuclear installations: The Minister must not approve an action consisting of or involving the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations: (a) a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; (b) a nuclear power plant; (c) an enrichment plant; (d) a reprocessing facility.”
Other Matters:
• a National Environmental Protection Authority be established
• the effectiveness of assessment bilateral agreements be reviewed, and approval bilateral agreements are not pursued
• legislate requirements for mine closure, address activities that are used to avoid mine closure and to work with states and territories to remediate existing legacy mine sites
• there be established internal process for DAWE to pursue the listing of newly identified species by referring to the Threatened Species Scientific Committee
• that the principles of free, prior and informed consent become a mandatory operational principle within the EPBC Act along with a governance mechanism to operationalise this principle……… . https://dont-nuke-the-climate.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Joint_Sub_EPBC_Nukes_FINAL.pdf
A brief Submission to the the Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
I first tried to use their online formal submission form. I found several of the questions they posed to be confusing, and obfuscated the issues. So, I gave up on their form, and just wrote my own ideas
Noel Wauchope, SUBMISSION TO EPBC REVIEW.
It is obvious that the polluting industries, especially mining, are keen to further weaken Australia’s environmental protection laws.
Announcing the statutory review of the commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) last October, the Morrison government pitched it as an opportunity to weaken the Howard era laws even further and make it easier still for environmentally destructive projects to be approved. 2
A particular case for scrutiny is in the uranium/nuclear industry. A very telling example of the weakness of the EPBC Act is in the sudden approval given by the then Environment Minister, Melissa Price, for the Yeelirrie uranium project to go ahead, in complete contradiction of its rejection by WA Environmental Protection Agency . The current EPBC Act specifies protection for species at risk of extinction. Still, the approval went ahead, the EPBC Act apparently a toothless tiger. 3
Australian governments, State and federal, are under relentless lobbying by the nuclear industry. There are several nuclear Inquiries going on at State level, and one Federal nuclear Inquiry. Despite the clear knowledge of nuclear power’s high costs, safety dangers and terrorism risks, the global nuclear lobby’s push is to remove Australia’s nuclear prohibition laws. The EPBC Act contains two strong nuclear prohibitions, which should not be changed – EPBC Act 1999 section 140A No approval for certain nuclear installations and EPBC Act 1999 section 22 What is a nuclear action?
2. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/28/with-the-climate-crisis-and-coronavirus-bearing-down-on-us-the-age-of-disconnection-is-over
3. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-questions-shonky-wa-uranium-mine-deal
Call for Australian government to delay review of its Environment laws
|
Environment groups ask government to delay review of Australia’s conservation laws https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/16/environment-groups-ask-government-to-delay-review-of-australias-conservation-laws
Six organisations raise concerns with environment minister Sussan Ley about the impact of the bushfires and coronavirus, Lisa Cox 16 Apr 2020 Some of Australia’s biggest environmental organisations have asked the government to delay the completion of its statutory review of Australia’s national environment laws.Six groups – the Australian Conservation Foundation, WWF, the Wilderness Society, Environmental Justice Australia, Humane Society International and Birdlife Australia – have raised concerns with the environment minister, Sussan Ley, about the impact of the bushfire and coronavirus crises on the review process. The independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) occurs once every 10 years and is due to publish its final report in October. But the process this year has been affected by back-to-back crises that began with the unprecedented bushfires through spring and summer. The government extended its timeframe for submissions to the review to the end of this week to give the public and organisations time to respond to the fire crisis.
But the fires were almost immediately followed by the massive economic and social upheaval caused by the global outbreak of Covid-19. The review has also lost one of the members of its expert panel due to the departure of Andrew Macintosh, leaving it without an environmental law expert. Macintosh stepped down from the review after he was named one of the commissioners on the bushfire royal commission. The government has so far said it intends to continue with the review’s timetable to publish a draft report in June and a final report in October. A spokesman for Ley said the review’s chair, Graeme Samuel, could request an extension for the final report but “he has not indicated a need to do so at this stage”. In their letter, the environment groups ask the government “to be cognisant of the current series of crises” and extend the timeframes for the draft and final reports to ensure “there will be space for meaningful consultation and deliberation”. “Extending timeframes will also enable you to be sure there is requisite sectoral expertise on the advisory panel, which is currently missing,” they say, in reference to both Macintosh’s departure and the failure of the government to appoint an ecologist to the review. When the review was announced last year, the government said it would “tackle green tape” and reduce delays in approvals of major projects. Environment groups, however, have long called for an overhaul of the act, which has been failing to stem Australia’s rate of extinction. In their letter, they say the Covid-19 crisis has affected the capacity of NGOs, business and the community to “meaningfully engage in the EPBC review process”. “We are also highly concerned that the majority of the review will take place without the ability for the reviewer and his panel to visit the natural areas that are at stake, see the impact of the 2019-20 summer bushfires and hear from the communities and organisations working to protect Australia’s unique biodiversity and see their work,” the letter states. Environment groups, however, have long called for an overhaul of the act, which has been failing to stem Australia’s rate of extinction. In their letter, they say the Covid-19 crisis has affected the capacity of NGOs, business and the community to “meaningfully engage in the EPBC review process”. “We are also highly concerned that the majority of the review will take place without the ability for the reviewer and his panel to visit the natural areas that are at stake, see the impact of the 2019-20 summer bushfires and hear from the communities and organisations working to protect Australia’s unique biodiversity and see their work,” the letter states. Ley’s office did not indicate any plan to replace Macintosh on the panel. “While Prof MacIntosh has been a valuable source of advice in the early stages of the review before focussing on the bushfire royal commission, he was one of many people with expertise in a range of areas who have assisted Prof Samuel on all aspects of the review and their contribution will be specifically acknowledged in the final report,” the spokesman said. Australia’s fire crisis caused a spike in concern about the environment among voters. Polling published by the Australian National University in February found about half the respondents listed the environment as the most or second most important issue in deciding their vote. A new poll of 1,024 Australians for the Places You Love alliance of environment groups found 87% were worried species were now at more risk of extinction unless something is done to protect habitat after the bushfires. In the immediate aftermath of the fires, a government analysis found 113 species had needed urgent attention after at least 30% of their habitat was burnt. The effect of social distancing restrictions due to Covid-19 has meant that scientists have had to shut down or scale back some field work that was to assess the full impact of the fires on wildlife. |
|
Australia’s political revolving door between military industry and government – Reynolds and Reith
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC
MILITARY INDUSTRY REVOLVING DOOR, MichaelWest.com 15 Apr 20
The “spruiker-in-chief” of defence industry has been involved with promoting military industry interests since the late 1980s when she co-founded the WA Defence Industry Council. Reynolds combined a career in the army reserves with political staffing roles for the Liberals, and a stint with industry giant Raytheon, before becoming a senator for WA in 2014. From 2 March 2019, she served as Minister for Defence Industry before being promoted to Defence Minister on 29 May 2019…….. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/linda-reynolds/
The Hon Peter Reith AM
MILITARY INDUSTRY REVOLVING DOOR
Former Howard government defence minister Peter Reith created a storm of protest when he quit politics and started work within a day or two for Tenix Defence (now BAE Systems Australia) as a consultant on government relations. Tenix Defence was Australia’s largest military industry corporation and a significant contractor to the department over which Reith had just had oversight. ……..more https://www.michaelwest.com.au/peter-reith/ …… https://www.michaelwest.com.au/linda-reynolds/
While we focus on coronavirus, the planet is still heating
All eyes are on coronavirus… but what about the planet? With COVID-19 all anyone is talking about at the moment, we take a look at where that leaves the environment, Pro Bono Australia, 14th April 2020 Maggie Coggan As many countries shut their borders, impose heavy-duty lock down laws, and scramble to deal with the financial and social implications of coronavirus, the climate crisis has shifted out of focus.
But environmental advocates warn that just because attention is elsewhere it doesn’t mean the environment isn’t suffering, or that action to mitigate the impacts of climate change should come to a grinding halt.
The crisis is still happening
At the end of March, the Great Barrier Reef experienced its third major bleaching event in the last five years.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority confirmed soon after that the bleaching was caused by warming waters associated with climate change.
Nathaniel Pelle, a senior Greenpeace campaigner, told Pro Bono News that while the reef could recover, it needed drastic emission reductions globally and in Australia.
He said something that wouldn’t help was the fossil fuel industry actively trying to weaken environmental protections, attracting corporate subsidies from government stimulus packages and forging ahead with mining projects.
“We’ve seen the petroleum exploration licence fees suspended in South Australia and a lot of oil and gas companies calling for assistance as well,” Pelle said.
“Controversial coal and gas projects like the Metropolitan mine, the Vicary Coal Mine, the Glendale mine, and the Narrabri Mine are continuing apace, even while communities don’t have the opportunity to participate, while expert witnesses aren’t necessarily going to be available and scientific investigation is impossible.”
The Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, also recently came under fire for lifting the ban on onshore gas exploration in mid-March, a move environment groups warned could lead to worse bushfires and droughts.
Gavan McFadzean, the Australian Conservation Foundation climate change program manager, also said it was critical that a close eye was kept on the fossil fuel industry.
“These are times often when the fossil fuel sector may attempt to entrench its longevity as an economic powerhouse,” McFadzean told Pro Bono News.
“They have been ramping up their political donations federally in recent years and have the kind of political access that could shape economic reform as we come out of this crisis.”
He added that the postponement of climate talks such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Cop26 in Glasgow meant that global targets and action would have to hold off until at least 2021.
He said while it was understandable the events were postponed, it was critical that once the virus was under control climate action once again took centre stage.
“The Cop26 event was going to be the most important conference since Paris in 2016… it was the conference where countries were going to be setting targets,” McFadzean said.
“It’s going to be really important that climate issues return to the national stage as COVID-19 gets under control, because climate change is also a central threat to society and the global economy as we know it.”
Emissions are going down – But not for long …….
Pelle said that if Australia and the rest of the world emerged from the crisis looking towards the energy solutions of the 21st century then the globe could see a recovery that worked for everyone.
“We could see a recovery that works for communities, that works for people, that makes people’s lives better and tackles the climate crisis at the same time, instead of a deliberate economic contraction and disruption to everyone’s lives,” he said.
A chance to start again
McFadzean said while the COVID-19 crisis was far from over, it was a good time to start imagining what a different kind of economy and climate future might look like if things were done differently.
“This means positioning ourselves to be an exporter of renewable energy to the world as we strive to make our future energy needs from low emission sources, recover our transport sector and move towards lower emissions vehicles, stronger pollution standards and electric vehicles,” he said………
https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2020/04/all-eyes-are-on-coronavirus-but-what-about-the-planet/
A flawed process- National Radioactive Waste Management- Submission from David Noonan
The Bill entrenches proposed untenable indefinite above ground storage and unnecessary double /
dual handling of ANSTO nuclear fuel wastes and Intermediate Level Wastes (ILW).
against the express will of the Barngarla People, compromising their Indigenous rights and interests
nuclear waste storage compromises Safety & Security and Rights & Interests in SA.
Dear Committee Chairperson
failures of best practice and shortcomings of the Federal gov. process on these issues to date.
nuclear waste state and Napandee near Kimba as an above-ground interim Nuclear Waste Store.
dual handling of ANSTO nuclear fuel wastes and Intermediate Level Wastes (ILW). The nuclear
regulator ARPANSA states these wastes require radiation shielding, safe handling and security, and
require isolation from people and from the environment for over 10,000 years.
(NSC) to the regulator ARPANSA and arguably compromises safety and security in South Australia.
granted to the proposed Nuclear Store, leaving an amended Act stranded with a specified failed site.
thereby intended to be imposed onto the community of SA contrary to our Parliament’s express will.
community on core plans to ship nuclear fuel waste to a Port in SA and to transport ILW across SA.
The Bill’s proposed specification of Napandee as a Nuclear Store effectively targets the Whyalla Port.
***
named Whyalla Port to take shipments of nuclear fuel wastes, in the event Napandee is specified.
thereby intended to be imposed onto the community of SA contrary to our Parliament’s express will.
casks, within the first two years of operations of a Nuclear Waste Store at Napandee (p.152).
Some 100 x B-double 50 tonne loads of Intermediate Level Wastes (ILW) are also intended in the
first four years of Nuclear Store operations at Napandee (p.152). The Report (p.157-158) states:
“It may be possible to have these containers shipped from Port Kembla to ports such as Whyalla”
these Federal plans and now face potential serious reputational risks and material impacts.
Whyalla is targeted for nuclear waste shipments and should have a right to refuse untenable plans.
letter to APRANSA CEO Dr Carl-Magnus Larsson (Nov 2016), NSC Chair Dr Tamie Weaver stressed the
“ongoing requirement to clearly and effectively engage all stakeholders, including those along
transport routes”, with the NSC stating such engagement “is essential”.
International Best Practice” and “also has implications for security” and for safety.
against the express will of the Barngarla People, compromising their Indigenous rights and interests.
in Bill. Then Premier of SA Jay Weatherill (Oct 2017) argued for recognition of an Aboriginal People’s
‘right of veto’ over proposed nuclear waste storage and disposal on their traditional lands.
and presents a reputational and material impact risk to their livelihood and community cohesion
Co-location of an above ground Nuclear Store alongside a Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility may fail.
***
Nuclear Store and for the Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility. The Federal gov. must not pre-empt nor
take for granted the outcome of this separate ARPANSA Licensing process for a Nuclear Store in SA.
The Nuclear Store in SA is unnecessary given ANSTO capacity for Extended Storage at Lucas Heights.
based in Adelaide over 1996 to 2011, including 5 years on the prior Federal attempt to impose a nuclear waste facility in SA (over 1998 to 2004) – another flawed process that had to be abandoned.
Committee Inquiry on the Findings of the Nuclear Royal Commission, held in 2016.
Nov 2018), provided a range of Briefing materials (see Attach’s 1 & 2), and given media comments.
Please feel free to contact regarding any aspect of this public submission, by Mobile, Text or E-Mail.
Yours sincerely
Mr David J Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St.
Independent Environment Campaigner
Conservation Council of Western Australia stresses importance of submissions to strengthen environmental protection
K-A Garlick Nuclear Free WA Campaigner, 10 Apr 20, The webinar, Yeelirrie – A Case for Environmental Law Reform was a great success, with a wealth of information from our four stellar speakers, on the urgent need for improved environmental laws using Yeelirrie as a case study for environmental law reform. We reviewed the Yelirrie uranium mine assessment process and how we can improve the agility in the Commonwealth environment department to identify and classify threatened and endangered species.
If you missed the webinar or would like to see the highlights again ~ click here for some great information to help you form your submission to the EPBC Act review.
Keynotes from the webinar, include;
- The importance of retaining the prohibition of nuclear power and the retention of uranium exploration and mining and the inclusion of nuclear actions as a matter of national environmental significance (MNES) under the EPBC Act,
- Environmental protection laws should protect against the extinction of species,
- Opportunity to introduce a merits review in a reformed EPBC Act as an independent, expert court or tribunal to ensure worlds best practice for community participation, accountability and environmental protection,
- We need an independent authority to administer the EPBC Act,
- We need increased open and transparent assessment processes, and
- We need a national EPA as there is no equivalent body at the federal level. A national EPA could undertake independent and technically expert assessments of projects, ensuring that the scientific evidence is put into focus.
The push for the nuclear industry and the Minerals Council of Australia to remove the prohibition on nuclear power and to remove the trigger for uranium mining is a serious push and real threat.
To retain these parts of the EPBC Act we encourage you to write a submission.
The new dont-nuke-the-climate website is a great tool to help you understand the nuclear issues and threat. There is a really useful nuclear ban page, to support your submission writing.
Submissions are due 17 April 2020.
Make a submission to the The Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
- Via the Department: make a submission using the online form here.
- Via email: epbcreview@environment.gov.au
- Via post: EPBC Act Review Secretariat, Department of the Environment and Energy. GPO Box 787, CANBERRA ACT 2601
The committee ask that you complete and submit this cover page with any submission via e-mail or post. All submissions that include this cover sheet will be considered by the review.
Outlandish claims made by Byron Shire Councillors, (Greens!!) promoting mobile Small Nuclear Reactors
What a strange article! The claims made about these “mobile small nuclear reactors” are completely fanciful. These reactors do not exist, 
are just in the planning stage for use by U.S. military. Even more fanciful , the article’s claim – “the pilot scheme, which will attract multi-million dollar grants.”. Just where are these grants to come from? The cash-strapped Australian government? The Russians? The Americans? The Chinese? This entire magical unicorn the Small Nuclear Reactor business is quite unable to attract investors. It’s only hope is to be funded by the tax-payer. I note these unnamed Green proponents talk about “spreading the risk fairly among the population” – and still think it’s just fine. So they understand that there’s a risk of dangerous radiation – a very strange attitude for a supposedly environmental group.
What could go wrong? https://www.echo.net.au/2020/04/what-could-go-wrong/ April 1, 2020 | by Echonetdaily, Mobile 100MW nuclear power plants have been proposed by the NSW National Party.
The latest miniaturisation technology that has seen electronic circuitry reduced from physical nodes to nanoscale impulses in quantum space has had astounding impacts on the relatively macroscale equipment needed to generate nuclear power. Such equipment has become so small it is now possible to build bus-sized nuclear reactors that can be deployed, as needed, to address gaps in the power grid.
Byron’s Greens councillors have indicated support for the proposal, and hope to involve the Shire in the early stages of the pilot scheme, which will attract multi-million dollar grants. A spokesperson for the local Greens said nuclear plants are not only less polluting than coal fired power stations, but being mobile means they spread the risk fairly among the population.
State and federal Greens later issued a statement disassociating themselves, ‘as always’, from Byron Shire councillors.
Big swings to the Greens in Brisbane wards elections
Cr Sri said the shutdown of ordinary life due to the coronavirus pandemic meant the Greens could no longer doorknock, their most effective campaign strategy, and had to rely on telephoning prospective voters instead. …. https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/greens-celebrate-record-swings-in-brisbane-wards-20200330-p54fbb.html
With the pandemic, and the bushfires, we now must strengthen the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC)
in the immediate term we need to advocate for vital improvements to the EPBC. It is extraordinary that the Howard legacy of deliberately excluding a project’s climate impacts from the triggers to require assessment still hasn’t been remedied. That must now be fixed, as must the fact that there is no mechanism for assessing the cumulative ecological impacts of various proposals. After this summer’s destruction of huge areas of remaining healthy ecosystems, we need to institute, in both legislation and the practice of assessment, a presumption of protection instead of a culture of managed destruction.
|
With the climate crisis and coronavirus bearing down on us, the age of disconnection is over https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/28/with-the-climate-crisis-and-coronavirus-bearing-down-on-us-the-age-of-disconnection-is-overTim Hollo
We can no longer pretend that we’re separate from each other and from the natural world @timhollo, Sat 28 Mar 2020 Everything is connected. It’s hard to imagine right now that, just weeks ago, the truism of ecological politics was treated as hippy nonsense by mainstream politics.
Announcing the statutory review of the commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) last October, the Morrison government pitched it as an opportunity to weaken the Howard era laws even further and make it easier still for environmentally destructive projects to be approved. And, regardless of clear statements from scientists and strong advocacy by campaign groups, it looked like it would get away with it because, back then, we were still living in the age of disconnection when the environment and the economy could be seen as separate things, in competition with each other. But then the summer arrived, delivering one after the other two massive wake-up calls. In the age of consequences, with the climate crisis and a deadly pandemic bearing down on us, it’s impossible to pretend that we are separate from each other and from the natural world. A pandemic, more than almost any other phenomenon, shows that all our lives are inextricably intertwined, for now and forever, whether we like it or not. It brings into sharp focus the impossibility of trying to keep economics, health, environment, education and social justice treated as separate questions with separate answers. It heightens awareness of our vital need, as social beings, to stay connected to each other as well as we possibly can while keeping our physical distance. It shows how the “efficient”, on-demand world that capitalism has constructed is so incredibly fragile that a series of shocks can bring it to the point of collapse. And with the rules of neoliberal economics being broken by governments the world over, it demonstrates that massive policy interventions, shifting the entire structure of the global economy, are possible. This heralded a shift in thinking that went deeper than personal impact. Perhaps due to the remarkably low loss of human life compared with the scale of the disaster, there was a tremendous focus on the more than a billion mammals, birds and reptiles killed. We mourned the thousands of koalas and the numerous species being pushed towards extinction if their habitats aren’t restored. The true legacy of this summer could be a vital turning point in recognising that “the environment” isn’t something “over there”. The environment is the air we breathe and the water we drink; it’s the soil in which we grow our food; it’s the animals we identify with and the landscapes imprinted on our souls; the environment is us, all of us, together, integrally connected with everyone and everything else on this beautiful blue marble floating in space. Damage the environment and we damage ourselves. And not just some of us – all of us together. Continue to think in our compartmentalised, linear fashion, and we’ll keep missing what’s coming, be it weeks of smoke, runs on toilet paper, or deadly pandemic What started to become clear thanks to the fires was rammed home by Covid-19. We are only as healthy as the least healthy among us. Everything we do relies on extraordinary networks of activity by people we’ve never met, crisscrossing the globe. And responding to a health crisis that was likely triggered in part by environmental destruction has world-changing impacts on the economy, on education, on social justice, on geopolitics. The age of disconnection is over. To bring us back to where we started, where does that leave the review of the EPBC Act? We have an opportunity now to not just push for a new generation of environment laws, but to re-evaluate the whole deal, to cultivate a new political settlement based on ecological principles of living well together in harmony with the natural world, understanding our place as part of it as First Peoples did for millenniums, with an economy designed to serve people and planet.
As part of this, in the immediate term we need to advocate for vital improvements to the EPBC. It is extraordinary that the Howard legacy of deliberately excluding a project’s climate impacts from the triggers to require assessment still hasn’t been remedied. That must now be fixed, as must the fact that there is no mechanism for assessing the cumulative ecological impacts of various proposals. After this summer’s destruction of huge areas of remaining healthy ecosystems, we need to institute, in both legislation and the practice of assessment, a presumption of protection instead of a culture of managed destruction. All this will, of course, be attacked as “green tape” and we have to be ready to actively defend it instead of changing the subject – and defend it on ecological grounds. Regulation is a vital part of the connective tissue which holds the body politic together. Removing it sees us fall apart. Covid-19 is, among other things, showing us the consequences of deregulating markets in health services, food supply and more. Having that conversation in this way means we won’t just be advocating for marginal improvements, but will be working to change politics. We’ll be building into the political common sense the idea that corporations absolutely should be regulated to enforce environmental and social responsibilities, and that we can no longer consider shareholder profit to be their sole focus. That helps move our politics towards altering the DNA of corporations so they operate as part of the body politic rather than as cancer cells. The flip side of this systemic shift is to institute legal rights for the natural world. If BHP has legal rights, why shouldn’t the Great Barrier Reef? Rights of nature is an increasingly mature legal field, instituted from New Zealand to Bolivia, India to parts of the US. We can and should at least insert them as a normative principle in the goals of the EPBC. While we’re thinking at that level, a new ecological political settlement will need a rethink of federalism. Our system sees national and state governments cooperating to shut out community participation and scientific advice to facilitate destructive development. An effective regime based on a presumption of protection would see federal, state, territory and local governments enabling communities to collectively develop creative ideas at their local level, within the context of expert scientific advice, and coordinating those ideas at a regional and continental level. If we shift environmental regulation from a process that is primarily responsive to demands of developers into a proactive, constructive, community-led system, we can see it morph from a defensive protection stance into one of active restoration, repair and regeneration. It can lead to the greening of cities and towns as we embrace the fact that habitats are not just “over there” but among us. It can create industrial jobs in coalmine rehabilitation. It can support regenerative agriculture, and cooperative sharing of scarce water. It can even open space for community-led conversations about relocation as the overheating world retreats from rising seas and inland desertification is inevitable. Supporting and enabling communities to make decisions is also vital for rebuilding confidence in democracy, which has collapsed in recent years. The ongoing panic-buying response to Covid-19 suggests that the abject failure of government to provide leadership through the fires worsened this further. This is now an opportunity to rethink governance, reclaim agency for communities, build practices of trust and social cohesion, embedded in respect for expert advice. Now it’s important to recognise that with this government we’re not going to get these kinds of changes. At best we might hold off the push to weaken the EPBC even further. But that shouldn’t stop us advocating for what we need. Quite the opposite. Politics, like the natural world it operates within, is a system. It works in complex ways because all it is is the collected actions of humans, influenced by each other and by external impetuses such as the weather. Or viruses. Donella Meadows, the modern mother of systems thinking, wrote that the most effective leverage point to change a system is “the mindset or paradigm out of which the system … arises”. It’s critical, then, that we confront the paradigm which sees environmental protection as of marginal importance at best, and as a barrier at worst. It’s vital that we challenge the mindsets of human disconnection from and dominance over nature. Advertisement
Over the past three months, a huge number of people made that conceptual leap. In recent weeks the crisis has become such that even mainstream politics finds it impossible to ignore. At the same time, over this period numerous people decided to just get on with it, without waiting for government. In both bushfire response and the tremendous mutual aid response to Covid-19, millions of us are setting up local projects, or joining existing ones, that make life better, generate social cohesion, reduce our footprint, and cultivate an ethic of care – for ourselves, for each other, for the natural world we are part of. If enough of us start doing this in our communities, and if enough submissions to the EPBC inquiry call for reforms that are embedded in ecological thinking, we will be putting a whole lot of small chocks under the lever. Each of those chocks is tiny. But together they can tip the balance. All of a sudden, especially at a moment like this, change will come. • Tim Hollo is executive director of the Green Institute and visiting fellow at the Australian National University’s school of regulation and global government (RegNet)
|
|
Tax-payers funded Matt Canavan’s expensive trip to attend coalmine opening
The former resources minister used the occasion to give a speech attacking ‘self-indulgent’ environmentalists, Guardian, Christopher Knaus, Wed 25 Mar 2020
The former resources minister Matt Canavan billed taxpayers for a $5,390 charter flight to travel 150km to attend the opening of a coalmine, where he gave a speech attacking “self-indulgent” environmental activists.
Canavan took the private charter flight from Mackay to Colinsville, a three-hour drive, so he could get to the opening of the $1.76bn Byerwen mine in north Queensland.
At the opening, Canavan gave a speech attacking what he described as “hypocritical, self-indulgent activists” holding back the dreamers of the mining industry…….
The most recent parliamentary expense reports, released last week, show Canavan later billed taxpayers for the $5,390 charter flight ….. The expense was listed as “unscheduled travel” by the independent parliamentary expenses authority and the finance department…….
The expense is roughly the same as that incurred by the former Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop, who chartered a $5,227 helicopter for a return trip from Melbourne to a golf course near Geelong for a Liberal party function.
Canavan quit as minister last month to support Barnaby Joyce’s bid to return to the leadership position. He has described himself as running on an “unashamedly pro-coal” platform.
The Guardian previously reported that Canavan had omitted two properties worth more than $1m from his current declaration of interests to parliament. He declared “nil” interests in real estate despite owning two houses in Yeppoon, Queensland and Macquarie in Canberra.
Canavan said he was not required to declare the interests to the 46th parliament because they’d been declared to the previous parliament, an argument that conflicts with official advice. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/mar/25/matt-canavan-billed-taxpayers-5390-for-charter-flight-to-attend-coalmine-opening
The Morrison govt’s emergency measures are a massive subsidy to Australia’s largest corporations.
|
Bankster Bailout: will the trickle-down package trickle beyond the banks and big business? Michael West Media, by Michael West | Mar 20, 2020 The Morrison Government’s emergency measures to protect the economy are another massive subsidy from embattled taxpayers to Australia’s largest corporations. They are a failure of government to govern. Michael West reports.
Question: why would a bank lend money to a business with no customers? Answer: it wouldn’t. Question: who will benefit from the Reserve Bank’s massive loan and money-printing program? Answer: banks, bond traders and corporate customers. Question: why? Answer: because the Government has delivered control of its money-printing program to the Reserve Bank and the banks. Instead of simply printing money and handing it to those who need it – indeed to those who will spend it – it is also giving the banks cash for loans (assets) which they are keen to offload. Question: if you were a banker would you lend money to a high risk small business or would you lend it to Qantas, Exxon or Energy Australia? Answer: the latter. You are more likely to get your money back from an airline which is protected by Government, an oil and gas multinational which extracts $10 billion a year from Australian seabeds and pays no tax or an oligopoly which provides essential services and also pays almost no tax. A whole generation of young people, and many not so young, are struggling to pay the rent and survive the coronavirus. But what does the Government do?
This Government really does have trouble actually governing. Lest it be accused of spending too much, its routine accusation against arch-rival Labor, and although it has already more than doubled the nation’s debt, the Government has decided to outsource its spending decisions to the banks. Ironically, the banks have today emerged to say the $90 billion loan package announced this week won’t work. Commonwealth Bank chief, Matt Cormyn, has just stated the obvious, small businesses don’t need a loan as much as direct assistance. Even if they did need a loan it would take a month to organise the $90 billion program and by then, we suspect, it might be too late anyway. Small businesses needed “direct” assistance, Cormyn told the ABC. As for the QE program, it is more nuanced than our explanation above – written to capture the essence of what is going on here (the very mention of the letters QE make the eyes glaze over and that sleepy feeling come on). Dissecting QETo the Reserve Bank’s QE program, Quantitative Easing or QE is technobabble for the RBA creating new money or, as they say, “printing money”. But there is a twist to this QE — a twist which has entirely eluded the mainstream media. Rather than the Government raising money – that is by issuing bonds – it has designed a program, a liquidity facility effectively, to be operated by the banks. In other words, the banks get money at attractive rates and they are expected to lend it to their customers. Herein lies the rub; how do the banks lend their new billions to small businesses with no customers? Anybody who has been awake over the last ten days and has engaged in the old-fashioned activity of conversation will have heard story after story about people who had a business last month but barely have one now. Their problem is not how to grow their business by borrowing money. They don’t have any customers. To be more specific, and as predicted here, the government has privatised its QE program. Instead of issuing bonds and deciding who needs it most, it has outsourced that decision-making process to the banks. How QE works, a simple explanation:………. So, the government has so far seen interest rates cut despite it being clear there will be little relief from even lower rates – and despite the banks declining to pass it all on to customers. It has buck-passed its QE program to the banks – which in reality is more of a liquidity bail-out than anything which can help small business. It has already had its $90 billion loan program queried by the banks themselves – all while ramping up its buying of assets from the banks. Over the past week the Reserve Bank’s repo holdings have soared to $20 billion which means they are using taxpayer money to cover the banks’ risk in their mortgage lending books. Most of this is RMBS, bundles of residential mortgages. Question: what will be the upshot of the coronavirus crisis? Answer: big business will grow in power and market dominance. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/bankster-bailout-will-the-trickle-down-package-trickle-beyond-the-banks-and-big-business/ |
|
After backlash from colleagues, NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro backs down from nuclear power support
Barilaro retreats on Nationals support for One Nation nuclear bill, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/barilaro-retreats-on-nationals-support-for-one-nation-nuclear-bill-20200317-p54avo.html, By Lisa Visentin,March 17, 2020 Deputy Premier John Barilaro has walked back his party’s support for a One Nation bill to allow nuclear power in NSW, as the issue threatened to split the Coalition.Mr Barilaro, a long-time advocate of nuclear energy, alarmed some Coalition MPs when he declared two weeks ago that the National Party would support Mark Latham’s bill to overturn a ban on uranium mining.
But the Nationals’ leader changed his tune on Tuesday, telling a budget estimates hearing the matter would first need to be considered by the party room as well as the cabinet.
Mr Barilaro made the unilateral call to back Mr Latham’s bill during an interview on Sky News on March 3 before consulting his party room, triggering concern among some National MPs and angering some of his Liberal cabinet colleagues.
“I’ve since then had to pull that back to the point where I’ll have to go through the National party room, the parliamentary team, before we get to that position,” Mr Barilaro told the hearing.
“What I’m committing to is advocating for a policy that the party stands for and let’s see what happens when we get to the floor of Parliament.”
However, Mr Barilaro reiterated his strong personal support for nuclear energy, in particular “small nuclear reactors”, which he dubbed “the iphone of reactors”.
In a terse exchange, Labor MLC Adam Searle asked Mr Barilaro whether he was aware small nuclear reactors “don’t exist anywhere in the world at the moment”.
Mr Barilaro responded that he was “advocating for a technology that we know is on the horizon,” saying the Russians “would probably have small modular reactors on the market in the next two to three years.”
When quizzed about whether he’d discussed with his Coalition colleagues where in NSW the reactors could be located, Mr Barilaro floated the option of his own electorate of Monaro, on the state’s southern border.
“I haven’t even ruled it out of my own electorate. There you go. There’s your press release for today. Can’t wait to see it,” he said.
Mr Barilaro has previously grounded his support for Mr Latham’s bill as being consistent with the National Party’s policy position to “support nuclear energy in Australia as part of the energy mix for the future”, adopted at last year’s state conference.
He confronted an immediate backlash from within the cabinet, which had yet to consider the issue, with at least four senior ministers saying they would not support his push to back the bill. One minister told the Herald they were prepared to quit cabinet rather than support it.
The split followed a parliamentary inquiry into Mr Latham’s bill, chaired by Liberal MLC Taylor Martin, which concluded the government should support it.
The two Labor MPs on the inquiry – John Graham and Mick Veitch – opposed the findings in a dissenting statement which reaffirmed Labor’s “longstanding and unequivocal platform position in relation to nuclear exploration, extraction and export.”
Mr Latham was also on the inquiry, which was comprised of eight MLCS, including three Liberals, two Labor, and one member apiece from the Nationals and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party.
Doctors again call on Australian govt about Julian Assange’s precarious health, risk of coronavirus
Almost 200 medical doctors say Julian Assange’s health is at increased risk from coronavirus, https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-news/2020/03/18/almost-200-medical-doctors-say-julian-assanges-health-is-at-increased-risk-from-coronavirus/ John McEvoy 18th March 2020 On 18 March, almost 200 medical doctors wrote to Australian foreign minister Marise Payne to warn that Julian Assange’s health is at increased risk from the new coronavirus.
“Mr Assange could die in prison”
This is the latest in a number of letters sent by Doctors for Assange to express concern over the WikiLeaks publisher’s deteriorating health.
On 22 November, the group signed an open letter addressed to UK home secretary Priti Patel, saying: “we have real concerns, on the evidence currently available, that Mr Assange could die in prison”.
In a follow-up letter published on 4 December, the doctors wrote:
When the UK, as a Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council, repeatedly ignores not only the serious warnings of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, but also its unequivocal investigative and remedial obligations under international and human rights law, the credibility of the UK’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law is fatally undermined.
Fertile breeding grounds”
The latest letter, signed by medical doctors from countries including the UK, Australia, Sweden, and the US, was written in light of the recent coronavirus pandemic.
The letter reads:
We wrote to you on December 15 2019 that Julian Assange’s life is at risk due to nearly a decade of human rights abuse including arbitrary detention, psychological torture and medical neglect. Now, with the president of the Prison Governor’s Association warning that prisons provide “fertile breeding grounds” for coronavirus, Julian Assange’s life and health are at heightened risk due to his arbitrary detention during this global pandemic. That threat will only grow as the coronavirus spreads. …
We therefore stand by our previous calls for the Australian Government to urgently intervene to protect the life, health and human rights of its citizen Julian Assange, before it is too late, whether due to coronavirus or any number of catastrophic health outcomes.
Coronavirus is the latest threat to Assange’s life, adding onto years of arbitrary punishment and psychological torture.
Time that Australia closed the door on the dangerous distraction of nuclear power
 Fukushima nine years on: Warnings for Australia https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/fukushima-nine-years-on-warnings-for-australia,13685#.Xm3ACigBj88.twitter
By Dave Sweeney | 15 March 2020 The anniversary of the Australian uranium-fuelled Fukushima nuclear disaster is no time to open the door to an expanded nuclear industry in Australia, writes Dave Sweeney.
NINE YEARS AGO this week the world learned to pronounce the word Fukushima as the March 11, 2011 Great Eastern earthquake and tsunami devastated large areas of Japans eastern seaboard. It also breached the safety and back-up systems at the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex leading to mass evacuations, hundreds of billions of dollars in economic loss and the release of large amounts of radioactive contamination. The crisis continues today with Japanese nuclear authorities confirming active intervention will be required for at least four more decades to stabilise the stricken site, contested and continuing releases of radioactive water to the Pacific and mounting waste management concerns. Fukushima means “fortunate island” but the luck largely melted down alongside the reactor and Fukushima remains a profound environmental, economic and human disaster that continues to negatively impact lives in Japan and far beyond. Against the shadow of Fukushima, the current pro-nuclear push in Australia is even more startling as it all started in the back of a big yellow truck in Australia. In October 2011, the Australian Parliament was formally advised that a load of Australian uranium was fuelling the Fukushima complex at the time of the disaster. Australian radioactive rocks are the source of Fukushima’s fallout, but sadly the miners and their political fellow travellers have been more focused on managing the political fallout. In September, 2011, the UN Secretary-General called on Australia to conduct:
This never happened. Instead of scrutiny, we have a swag of conservative state and federal politicians and commentators lining up to beat the zombie drum for this down but not dead sector. Their fanciful claims of economic benefit belie the reality of an embattled sector that has failed to deliver the dollars and has never made sense. And recently these atomic advocates have been joined by a conga line of nuke-spruikers championing domestic nuclear power and seeking public funds for a technology whose time has passed in the case of old reactors or whose time is not here, and never likely to be, in the case of so-called “next-generation” reactors. As home to around 35% of the world’s uranium reserves, Australia is a significant player in the global nuclear trade and what we do, or fail to do, matters. Since the 1980s the “modern” period of Australian uranium mining has been dominated by two major operations – Ranger in Kakadu and Olympic Dam in northern South Australia. Processing of stockpiled ore limps on at Ranger but mining has ended and parent company Rio Tinto is now focussed on rehabilitation work. The era of uranium mining in Kakadu is over – now comes the costly and complex clean-up and repair. At Olympic Dam, the world’s biggest mining company, BHP is seeking to expand operations. However, this move is being driven by the growing global demand for copper, not because of any appetite for uranium. And the big Australians plan poses a big threat to the SA environment and the local workforce. The company is persisting with a development model based on the continuation of “extreme risk” tailings dams and massive water consumption in Australia’s driest state. Meanwhile, smaller uranium operations mines like Honeymoon in SA or undeveloped projects like Cameco’s Kintyre and Yeelirrie projects in WA have been deferred or placed on extended care and maintenance due to the depressed uranium market and low commodity price. The sector’s prevailing business model is to sort the paperwork, duchess conservative politicians and commentators and hope for better times. Historically the sector has been constrained by political uncertainty, restrictions on the number of mines, a consistent lack of social license and strong Aboriginal and community resistance. Recent years have seen fewer political constraints but a dramatic decline in the price of uranium and popularity of nuclear power following Fukushima Australia’s uranium industry generates less than 0.2% of national export revenue and accounts for less than 0.02% of jobs in Australia – under one thousand people are employed in Australia’s uranium industry. The sector is an economic minnow and a waste, risk and cost whale. In an attempt to jump-start the flat-lining uranium trade successive federal governments have embraced enthusiasm rather than evidence. They have failed to scrutinise the sector, preferring to further remove already scant environmental and public health protections and fast-track increasingly irresponsible uranium sales deals including to India, Ukraine and the UAE. Australia’s uranium sector is high risk and low return. It means polluted mine sites at home and nuclear risk and insecurity abroad. And it fuelled Fukushima. This anniversary, it is time to learn one simple lesson from Fukushima. Radioactive risk is more constant than a politician’s promise or corporate assurance. For Australia, this means it is time to close the door on the dangerous distraction of domestic nuclear power and open the door to a credible and independent review of costs and consequences of the uranium sector. Dave Sweeney is the Australian Conservation Foundation’s nuclear-free campaigner and was a member of the Federal advisory panel on radioactive waste. You can follow him on Twitter @nukedavesweeney. |
|
|
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 